from the dysfunction-junction dept

When ISPs responded to President Obama's belated support of Title II based neutrality rules, one of the key refrains was that the FCC was a bunch of "unelected representatives" and we really should rely on a bickering, divided Congress to solve net neutrality for us. AT&T, for example, proclaimed it would sue over FCC Title II rules and that protecting consumers is a decision "more properly made by the Congress." Comcast similarly agreed, insisting that such a "radical reversal of consistent contrary precedent should be taken up by the Congress." Obviously it's not Democracy these companies are interested in as much as it is the knowledge they have the majority of Congress comfortably tucked away in their back pockets.

And indeed, right on schedule, campaign cash hungry politicians are stumbling over themselves to please AT&T, Verizon and Comcast -- and are looking for any and every Congressional option to prevent the FCC from imposing real neutrality rules. Senator John Thune is among several lawmakers looking for a "legislative fix" to hamstring the FCC. Rep. Bob Goodlatte is similarly looking to craft rules that hinder the FCC's ability to act. Other politicians are looking to curtail the FCC's already dwindling funding.

As we've long noted, the fact that neutrality is now seen as a partisan issue is ridiculous, as all neutrality supporters are looking for is are rules that protect consumers and keep the Internet healthy, something that benefits everyone. Still, the GOP specifically has been pushing for the last year to rewrite The Communications Act (mostly to the benefit of the AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and MPAA's of the world), and that effort is now going to be used to fight a very vocal proxy war against the FCC and Title II neutrality rules:

"House Republicans have spent more than a year reviewing possible changes to the Communications Act, which was last updated in the mid-1990s, and the new Senate GOP majority is expected to begin a similar process in 2015. Already, there are signs the party is eager to transform the debate into a proxy war over net neutrality.

"Each time it has tried to regulate the Internet, the FCC has been overruled by the courts because existing telecommunications laws were written decades ago for a completely different era," the Thune spokeswoman said. “The most straightforward approach would be for Congress to update and modernize those laws to take into account technological transformations while not discouraging the private-sector investment and innovation that is critical for consumers and our nation’s modern economy."

Of course what Thune means when he says "modernized" is a new Communications Act that strips away the lion's share of dwindling regulatory authority and lets the incumbent ISPs run amok in the uncompetitive broadband playground previous ISP-lobbyist-written laws helped create. The same folks who insist they're only looking out for the health of the market are the same individuals willfully oblivious to the lack of health in the uncompetitive broadband market, or the fact that letting lumbering duopolists literally write telecom law might not be the healthiest option when it comes to giving innovators or healthy markets a leg up.

For a moment there it looked like neutrality supporters had all of the momentum in getting tougher rules passed, resulting in a SOPA-esque groundswell of support for Title II protections. While Wheeler's certainly justified in taking time to get the rules right -- his delays are opening the window to a million and one legislative, political and public relations efforts to neuter his agency before his rules (whether that's hybrid or pure Title II) even get their grand unveiling. The next FCC meeting isn't until January 29, 2015, and it's possible that Wheeler's proposal may not see the light of day until March.

Until then, we'll get to enjoy a shitshow where the big ISPs pay friends in Congress to push draft legislative "fixes" written by ISP lobbyists under the pretense they're engaged in a noble battle against the menace of government over-reach. In reality for many neutrality opponents in Congress it's simply about protecting the duopoly stranglehold on uncompetitive markets, and the ability to use that stranglehold to develop new and creative ways to raise rates and thwart competitors. Of course Presidential veto and partisan bickering mean none of these efforts are likely to get very far, and this may just be an instance where the inability of Congress to actually accomplish anything of worth may wind up helping consumers.

from the change-is-apparently-hard dept

For years the cable and broadcast industry has tried to pretend it's keeping pace with the times via an initiative called "TV Everywhere." TV Everywhere essentially lets cable subscribers watch a selection of limited content on limited devices -- if you have a traditional cable connection. The idea is that if you've got TV Everywhere, there's simply no need to wander off campus to enjoy streaming services from the likes of Netflix. But as we noted years ago, the idea was unlikely to accomplish much given it's based on DRM'd, restrictive walled gardens and unskippable ads -- precisely the sort of things that drive users to streaming alternatives and piracy in the first place.

Our skepticism appears warranted. A study from earlier this year indicated that 82% of consumers have no idea what TV Everywhere even is. While polite about it, the study concluded that this was because TV Everywhere as a concept just isn't implemented very well, and inconsistently across carriers. The study also noted that just 4% even knew what their cable credentials are. Companies like Sling have seized on the TV Everywhere dysfunction, going so far as to launch entire ad campaigns mocking the concept for being overly restrictive and just kind of annoying.

In an amusing attempt to right the TV Everywhere ship, Comcast and NBC Universal appear poised to launch a new TV Everywhere brand awareness effort. This will include, reports indicate, promoting the service via ads running the tagline "watch TV without a TV":

"The campaign, which carries the “Watch TV without a TV” tagline and will be backed by digital and on-air promos across NBCU’s portfolio, will focus on how consumers can access content across those channels and brands on a variety of connected devices as part of their existing pay-TV The new TVE consumer campaign, NBCU said, will be “laser focused on driving web traffic, mobile downloads, video views and increased engagement across NBCUniversal’s brands."

Rather amusingly, this concept of "watching TV without a TV" only goes so far, given that while NBC is finally offering some live streams of its content on the company's website as part of this new initiative, in good-old TV Everywhere fashion you still need a traditional cable subscription to access it. In twenty years the cable and broadcast industry's attempts to fight consumers at every step of the way (skippable ads, walled gardens, a la carte) will be part of a hilarious master class in what not to do when fighting disruption. At the moment however, most of the cable and broadcast industry just believes it's being incredibly clever and innovative.

from the don't-fear-the-investment-bogeyman dept

By now, we've made it pretty clear that while Title II is being portrayed as a big, scary bogeyman by the nation's largest ISPs, it's really only a regulatory burden if you're doing something wrong. And while ISPs like Verizon, Comcast and AT&T have been making the rounds telling anyone who'll listen that Title-II based rules will stifle industry investment, those same ISPs have been not only regulated for years under Title II without problems, but ISPs like Verizon, Charter and Time Warner Cable have also been admitting to investors that's simply not true.

Enter hardware vendors like Sandvine, Cisco, Intel, IBM and Adtran, who last week joined forces to oppose Title-II based net neutrality rules in a letter (pdf) to Congress and the FCC. Even though the investment-bogeyman mantra has been thoroughly debunked by this point, that didn't stop the companies from upping the rhetoric ante -- and proclaiming that Title II will kill the entire economy:

"While many experts have noted the damage Title II could do to network investment, the harm would cascade out far beyond the provision of broadband service because the Internet is now so entwined with our entire economy...Reversing course now by shifting to Title II means that instead of billions of broadband investment driving other sectors of the economy forward, any reduction in this spending will stifle growth across the entire economy. This is not idle speculation or fear mongering. And as some have already warned, Title II is going to lead to a slowdown, if not a hold, in broadband build out, because if you don’t know that you can recover on your investment, you won’t make it."

Except fear mongering is exactly what it is. Wireless voice has always been regulated under Title II, yet wireless has seen an explosion in network investment over the last decade. Verizon's FiOS services are regulated under Title II for tax purposes, and a quick glimpse skyward should illustrate that the sky didn't fall. Meanwhile, to encourage regulatory apathy, the letter perpetuates the boring falsehood that the broadband market has "flourished" under a decade of deregulation regulatory capture, when the lack of competition, high prices, and horrid customer service clearly shows that's not the case.

The network hardware vendors' letter last week was bandied about as proof positive that "tech" companies oppose Title II rules, ignoring, of course, that in this case we're talking specifically about tech companies that stand to profit handsomely from weaker (or no) net neutrality rules.

Much like the ISPs, it's not really Title II hardware vendors oppose. What they oppose are rules that could potentially hamstring the billions that can be made from abusing the incumbent ISP gatekeeper stranglehold over noncompetitive markets, whether that comes in the form of double dipping, erecting arbitrary new tolls, discriminating against competing traffic, or imposing otherwise "creative" new pricing paradigms. After all, if these companies stand to make billions selling the hardware that makes this bad behavior possible, why on Earth would they want net neutrality rules that prohibit it?

from the giving-a-damn-is-a-special-perk-just-for-you dept

Comcast has certainly been pulling out all the stops to get its $45 billion acquisition of Time Warner Cable approved by regulators. That has involved calling everyone who opposes the merger ignorant and unreasonable, paying minority groups to parrot the company's positions, and generally repeatedly denying all of the competitive and monopsony concerns raised by deal critics. All while the company's top lobbyist, David Cohen, busily dodges lobbying rules by pretending he's not actually lobbying (he seriously calls himself the company's "Chief Diversity Officer").

Comcast has employed some forty lobbying firms to court DC politicians, and offered up cash donations to 32 of the 39 members of the House Judiciary Committee that recently held hearings on the merger. In a piece exploring how David Gregory lost his job on "Meet The Press," (and the rise of Comcast's David Cohen as a K Street powerhouse) the Washingtonian points out that Comcast lobbyists have also been busy handing out special "VIP cards" to DC lawmakers. These cards feature a single-use phone number that will prioritize your customer support call:

"Comcast also had an even more personal way of sucking up to Washington. Its government-affairs team carried around “We’ll make it right” cards stamped with “priority assistance” codes for fast-tracking help and handed them out to congressional staffers, journalists, and other influential Washingtonians who complained about their service.
A Comcast spokeswoman says this practice isn’t exclusive to DC; every Comcast employee receives the cards, which they can distribute to any customer with cable or internet trouble. Nevertheless, efforts like this one have surely helped Comcast boost its standing inside the Beltway and improve its chances of winning regulatory approval for its next big conquest: merging with the second-largest cable provider in the country, Time Warner Cable."

Comcast's customer service is, as we've noted a few times, historically awful. As in, surveys show it's worse than nearly any other company in any other industry, which is no small feat. Comcast CEO Brian Roberts frequently complains that this is simply because the company's so large, and that statistically you're simply going to have a lot of squeaky wheels. So amusingly, in addition to throwing cash at DC lawmakers, Comcast is using actually giving a damn about your customers (or the illusion of giving a damn, as Comcast employees tell me these cards are common and don't actually do all that much) as a "special perk" you can only get if you're immeasurably annoyed with the company -- or a DC lobbyist that can help it out.

What's the over/under on a larger Comcast someday waking up and realizing that the company should focus on giving everybody decent customer service?

from the oops dept

The saga of Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood and his cozy ties to Hollywood continue to come out. He's been claiming that, sure, he met with Hollywood's top lawyer, Tom Perrelli, had him prep Hood for a meeting with Google, and even took a ~4,000 word angry letter that Perrelli wrote for him, signed it as his own and sent it to Google -- but he did all that without knowing that Perrelli worked for Hollywood's top lobbying arm, the MPAA. Uh huh.

And then in a press conference, he insisted that he was doing this out of his own interest in protecting the children -- but also admitted that his office didn't have any intellectual property experts and didn't have a million dollars to do an investigation (approximately the amount the MPAA's leaked emails show them discussing to fund this investigation) and that he needed to rely on such help from "victims" to make his case. It's fairly rare, though, that "victims" of a crime run the actual law enforcement investigation and fund it as well.

Still, in that last post, we also mentioned how Hood implied that anyone suggesting he was "paid off" might be defaming him, and apparently also stated that he wasn't getting any money from Hollywood, encouraging reporters to "check records."

Hood: Not getting any money from Hollywood as far as he knows. Encouraged us to check records.

Okay then. Let's... check the records. Here, for example, is the MPAA's Political Action Committee apparently giving $2,500 to an operation called "The Friends of Jim Hood."

And, you can also look at the public record of who donated to his campaign, which pretty clearly shows donations to his campaign from NBC Universal and 20th Century Fox.

Oh, and for good measure, the RIAA as well:

And then there are some that are not as direct, but are at least noteworthy. First up, we've got the "Mike Moore Law Firm." Now, this might not be that surprising. Moore is a long time friend of Hood and preceded him as Attorney General. Moore apparently helped Hood get into politics and the two are regularly seen together. So it's no surprise that Moore would donate to his campaign. But it's at least noteworthy because the NY Times revealed that a Hollywood front group, the Digital Consumer's Alliance, which is funded by the movie studios, hired Moore as a lobbyist. So, at the very least, this may count partially as money from Hollywood:

There were a few other interesting ones, but the other one I'll point to is from the Patrick Lynch Group. It's a "government affairs" operation focused on lobbying state attorneys general. But if you look at its page listing out when it's "in the news," a large number of them involve stories attacking Google. Here's an op-ed written by Patrick Lynch a few years ago attacking Google, which notes that he represents "FairSearch.org," which is a somewhat infamous Microsoft front group that has been behind a variety of attacks on Google throughout the years. So it may not be "Hollywood" money directly, but it's a top lobbyist for an effort to attack Google.

None of that, of course, means that Hood is, in any way, beholden to this kind of money. This is just the nature of politics. But Hood was the one who directly dared reporters to check the record and said he hadn't received money from such sources. That's wrong. He did. The least he can do is admit it.

from the if-we-just-stay-quiet-we-can't-possibly-get-in-trouble dept

One of the more dubious Comcast practices brought up by opponents of Comcast's planned $45 billion acquisition of Time Warner Cable is the cable giant's sluggish refusal to support certain internet video services and platforms running over its broadband network. Case in point is the HBO Go app on Roku, which Comcast hasn't supported since around 2011 or so for no coherent reason. To get the app to work, it needs to simply authenticate with the cable provider to prove you are a cable subscriber (since, at least until next year, there's no HBO Go standalone option).

Much smaller cable companies haven't had a problem in getting this to work, but Comcast, with its limited resources, somehow just can't seem to spend the time. Roku's neutrality filing with the FCC expressed concern that cable authentication systems could be used as yet another way gatekeepers could extract tolls from streaming services. As we noted when Comcast similarly refused to support HBO Go on the Playstation 3, the company -- when it can be bothered to comment on the issue at all -- usually trots out the excuse that getting this stuff to work is well, gosh -- time consuming:

"With every new website, device or player we authenticate, we need to work through technical integration and customer service which takes time and resources. Moving forward, we will continue to prioritize as we partner with various players."

It certainly does appear to be a case of priorities. With Comcast looking to eliminate any and all justifications to reject its merger, the company this week announced its network would finally support HBO Go on Roku -- some three years later. It couldn't possibly be that Comcast intentionally stalled on supporting HBO Go on the country's best-selling third-party streaming device because it wants to keep customers contained within the Comcast set top ecosystem and away from other options, could it?

Of course while Comcast will now support Roku, that doesn't mean the same problem isn't going to keep coming up with other devices. This week, Amazon announced that their Fire TV set tops will now support HBO Go. Except when users go to activate their device, they'll find that Comcast's broadband network isn't supported. Once again, Comcast isn't explaining why it's having such a hard time getting such a simple authentication system to work -- when few if any cable providers seem to have this problem. Amazon, meanwhile, is directing annoyed users to Comcast.

It's a good example of how gatekeepers can engage in anti-competitive behavior under the auspices of technical complications, even with net neutrality rules in place (though I don't think this is technically a neutrality violation). Like the wireless industry's blocking of Google Wallet for ambiguous security reasons (as their own competing platform was taking off), and AT&T's blocking of Facetime for "network congestion" issues (AT&T was really just trying to force people off of unlimited plans), all it apparently takes for incumbent ISPs to stall services they're afraid of is a one-two punch of silence and ambiguity.

from the pay-us-to-pay-us dept

In June of last year, Comcast quietly announced that it was deploying a new "Xfinity Home Hotspot" initiative that would turn user home routers into publicly-accessible hotspots. Updated routers broadcast two signals: one being yours, and the other being an "Xfinitywifi" SSID offering free Wi-Fi to Comcast users in the area (prepaid Wi-Fi for non-Comcast customers). Comcast's FAQ attempts to minimize customer worries about the initiative by noting the public Wi-Fi doesn't count against the customer's usage caps, and the router delivers extra bandwidth (above your provisioned speeds) to counter any extra usage load.

There are a number of problems with the initiative. One, you're paying Comcast a monthly fee (up to $10 in many areas) to rent hardware that's using your bandwidth (and around $30 in electricity annually) to effectively advertise and sell Comcast services. Two, the service is being deployed market-by-market without prior consumer consent. It's also opt out not opt-in, and users complain the routers continuously and mysteriously reset this preference each time the hardware receives a firmware update. Three, Comcast's sending out misleading e-mails that may place an order for the new hardware without your consent.

Complaints have been growing about this initiative for a while, but they appear to have reached a fevered pitch this week with the news that Comcast is now facing a class action lawsuit over the Xfinity Home Hotspot program. Reading the complaint, lawyers don't appear to have noticed yet that the opt-out mechanism often doesn't actually work -- but from the looks of things the fact Comcast doesn't give advanced warning about the changes may be enough for a case:

"Grear claims that Comcast does not request customers' authorization to use their residential equipment and networks for public use. "Indeed, Comcast's contract with its customers is so vague that it is unclear as to whether Comcast even addresses this practice at all," the lawsuit claims. In using its customers' home networks to build a national network, Comcast "has externalized the costs of its national wi-fi network onto its customers," Grear says in the complaint. He claims that the new routers use much more electricity than regular routers, and that this is "a cost borne by the unwitting customer."

Fortunately, Comcast customers can skip the legal proceedings and take things into their own hands by buying their own compatible router and modems, thereby avoiding paying Comcast a $10 per month rental fee to help build Comcast's nationwide Wi-Fi network. Estimates suggest Comcast makes $300 million per quarter just off of these modem rental fees alone, and the monthly fee has steadily climbed sykward over the last several years.

from the trust-us-we're-the-cable-company dept

While debate over the Comcast merger had hit a bit of a lull for Thanksgiving, it was revived this week with the launch of a group calling itself the Stop Mega Comcast Coalition. Formed by a combination of companies like Dish and consumer advocacy groups like Public Knowledge, the group is lobbying to stop the merger on the grounds it harms competition, price and innovation across a number of markets, including broadband, television, and advertising. Of course, group participants Fairpoint Communications and Dish would likely give a limb to wield the kind of market power Comcast enjoys, but you're apparently supposed to ignore that and just applaud their selfless dedication to consumer welfare.

The unveiling of the group resulted in Comcast penning a blog post in which it slammed the new group for trotting out complaints that "weren't found to be credible" in the company's past transaction reviews (like when Comcast acquired NBC, then ignored the merger conditions crafted by itself). To hear Comcast tell it, the company found at least 600 "thoughtful and positive" people who think Comcast getting immensely more massive is a great idea:

"While it’s no surprise that the same competitors and special interest groups who’ve gone after Comcast in the past are at it again, the record tells a very different story. Over the last several months, the FCC has received an outpouring of nearly 600 thoughtful and positive comments about the transaction from a wide range of supporters. Unlike most of the criticism, the support has been very transaction-specific.

This support includes more than 100 Chambers of Commerce and business organizations, as well as a wide array of small businesses, start-ups, and technology companies. It includes more than 20 programmers, nearly 200 diversity groups and community partners, and over 150 state and local leaders of both parties."

"We are still working with a vendor to analyze the FCC spreadsheet but in case it shows that there are any consumers in census blocks that may lose a broadband choice, want to make sure these sentences are more nuanced."

That's essentially Comcast accidentally publicly admitting that, even after a year of merger prep and defense, that it doesn't actually fully understand the impact of its own deal proposal. The note suggests Comcast had to pay an outside vendor to double check FCC data (provided to the FCC by Comcast), and then would have softened its rhetoric depending on what the analysis found. In a follow up e-mail to me, Comcast denies that it doesn't understand its own $45 billion mega-merger, but then adds to truly do so would take actually visiting some neighborhoods:

"Karl, our filings have detailed this issue in the past. It would literally take someone walking the streets or going down to a house by house map to find out if there is any actual overlap - and this would be if any likely in only a very very small number of homes."

Perhaps you should maybe go do that before repeatedly insisting there's no competitive overlap? Sure, it's true that the merger is more about vertical integration, programming leverage and monopsony concerns than direct market competition, but that doesn't make Comcast's stumbling, bumbling defense of the deal any less entertaining.

from the faux-outrage dept

Given Netflix's rather vocal opposition to usage caps and support of Title II (pdf), the company is unsurprisingly public enemy number one for many major broadband and TV companies (and their various PR, lobbying and policy folk) at the moment. There's a pretty apparent attempt on some fronts to paint Netflix as the villain in the recent interconnection feuds, in which Netflix (and companies like Level 3 and Cogent) insist incumbent ISPs are intentionally letting interconnection points degrade to extract new fees from content and service companies.

This week, Netflix's supposed villainy was highlighted by FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai, who penned a letter (pdf) to the company complaining that Netflix had abandoned its net neutrality principles and had been hypocritically encouraging the creation of Internet "fast lanes":

"Netflix has been one of the principal advocates for subjecting Internet service providers (ISPs) to public utility regulation under Title II of the Communications Act, arguing that this step is necessary to prevent the development of so-called "fast lanes" on the Internet. "The basic argument," you have said, “is that we're big believers in the free and open Internet." For this reason, I was surprised to learn of allegations that Netflix has been working to effectively secure "fast lanes" for its own content on ISPs' networks at the expense of its competitors.

What is Pai's evidence that the company is being a hypocrite on neutrality? Exhibit A appears to be Netflix's refusal to join a new coalition called the Streaming Video Alliance, whose founding members include two of the biggest players in the cable and broadband industry: Comcast and Charter Communications. One of the group's other founding members is Frost and Sullivan analyst Dan Rayburn, who has spent much of the last year telling anyone who'll listen that incumbent ISPs with thirty years of anti-competitive behavior are just misunderstood, and it's Netflix that's to blame for most of the modern era's Internet video problems.

That Netflix didn't feel the overwhelming need to join this coalition of BFFs isn't particularly surprising.

Pai's other example of Netflix's fast lane hypocrisy appears to be simply the fact that Netflix runs its own content delivery network, Netflix Open Connect. Open Connect is a free-to-join CDN that involves ISPs hosting Netflix caching hardware on their network, something that reduces Netflix's costs, but also reduces overall ISP traffic load, improving video delivery efficiency all around. To hear Pai tell it however, Netflix's CDN is a big, bad bogeyman:

"Some have suggested that Netflix has taken these actions because the company is currently installing its own proprietary caching appliances throughout ISPs' networks as part of its Open Connect program. If ISPs were to install open caching appliances throughout their networks, all video content providers—including Netflix—could compete on a level playing field. If, however, ISPs were to install Netflix's proprietary caching appliance instead, Netflix's videos would run the equivalent of a 100-yard dash while its competitors' videos would have to run a marathon."

You might recall that AT&T, Verizon and Comcast refused to participate in Netflix's CDN, instead forcing Netflix to pay them new interconnection fees to keep streaming performance from foundering. Meanwhile, Netflix makes the company's peering locations, guidelines, hardware design and the open source software components largely open to inspection, so while you can't go build Netflix CDN hardware yourself, we're not exactly talking about state secrets. It's also worth noting that small and mid-sized ISPs (usually with much better track records on consumer issues than their larger brethren and no TV revenues to protect) have wholeheartedly supported Netflix's efforts. Dane Jasper, CEO of Sonic.net, for example called Netflix's Open Connect "brilliant." George Mitsopoulos, COO of independent ISP Ikanos/DSLExtreme, also similarly notes that Open Connect is of great benefit to ISPs.

None of this is to say Netflix is a saint. Everyone is running blindly toward the Internet video cash trough, and all of them want everyone using their preferred solutions, with meaningful transparency an ongoing problem. To be sure, Netflix's ISP rankings system is also a bit of a ham-handed attempt to name and shame ISPs that don't use its CDN (Open Connect partners unsurprisingly seeing better positioning), and the company's initial decision to restrict higher-quality "Super HD" streams to just these partners was thankfully reversed. That said, at some point you have to ask yourself based on history and experience: which do you trust more on consumer issues: Comcast or Netflix?

You also have to wonder why an FCC Commissioner that has no problems with rampant media consolidation, net neutrality violations or the lack of broadband competition is just so very concerned about such a curiously specific issue. Of all the pressing consumer issues facing the telecom and TV market (usage caps, neutrality, lack of competition, sneaky fees, cramming, etc.) Pai's greatest concern is Netflix's free, entirely voluntary content delivery network? If one didn't know any better, one might get the impression that the legacy TV industry and its loyal politicians and pundits are putting on a political dog and pony show to punish Netflix for standing up to companies with thirty years of anti-competitive behavior under their belts.

from the King-Kong-was-simply-misunderstood dept

As we've noted before, Comcast has not only the worst customer satisfaction ratings in the telecom industry, but among the worst customer satisfaction ratings across all industries. The reasons for this are not complicated: the company grew like wildfire through acquisitions, then made a habit of skimping when it came to customer support and subcontracted installation technicians. The result is a never ending parade of ridiculous stories involving poorly trained or under-funded Comcast employees doing something aggressive, pathetic, or downright abusive.

Every six months or so like clockwork Comcast CEO Brian Roberts will come forward with his hat in hand and a puppy-dog look on his face, promising that the company has heard the public's concerns and is doing everything possible to fix things. While the press has fixated on Comcast lately because of the Time Warner Cable merger, this has been going on for most of the last decade.

During one of these episodes about a year ago, Comcast CEO Brian Roberts came forward to insist the company was working really hard on improving customer service, but that the problem was really a matter of scale. To hear Roberts tell it, the company only really sees such a heavy volume of complaints because Comcast itself is just so huge:

"What unfortunately happens is we have about … 350 million interactions with consumers a year, between phone calls and truck calls. It may be over 400 million and that doesn't count any online interactions which I think is over a billion. You get one-tenth of one-percent bad experience, that's a lot of people..."

"At an event in San Francisco, Roberts said that he was “embarrassed” and “disappointed” when he heard the recording. “It was a teachable moment for employees and it was a teachable moment for all of us,” he said...Still, the Comcast CEO maintained that such customer service nightmares are not the norm. “We get 250 million phone calls a year,” he said. “The nature of our business is that we’re going to have these things."

Continuing to pretend that the problem is a matter of scale simply doesn't cut it as an excuse. Worse, if "these problems happen when you're big" is really the explanation the CEO wants to keep falling back on, what happens when the company's $45 billion acquisition of Time Warner Cable gets approved?